Macaca Moments Reconsidered… YouTube Effects or Netroots Effects? David Karpf PhD Candidate, University of Pennsylvania Political Science Department Fellow-in-Residence, Miller Center for Public Affairs [email protected] Abstract This paper explores “Macaca moments” – high profile candidate gaffes that are captured on YouTube and receive a cascade of citizen viewing, leading to substantial political impacts. Such moments are widely taken as indicative of the way that YouTube is changing politics. Through a detailed comparative case analysis of the original “Macaca moment” – George Allen’s controversial statement in the 2006 Virginia Senate election – and the most often-cited such incident in the 2008 election – Michele Bachmann’s verbal misstep on Hardball with Chris Matthews – the paper discusses the varying impacts of YouTube itself versus the “netroots” political community. Though there is great similarity between how the 2006 and 2008 moments involved YouTube, the substantial differences between how the netroots engaged with the larger campaigns led to widely divergent outcomes. The paper seeks to bring political organizations back in to the study of online collective action, and is one of the first academic works to treat the robust political community at DailyKos.com as a topic worthy of examination in its own right. 1 1 The paper relies on data from archived DailyKos blog posts, which were coded into an Excel database. The database will be placed into the JITP dataverse for future public reference and analysis. Macaca Moments Reconsidered 1 “This fellow here, over here with the yellow shirt, Macaca, or whatever his name is… He’s following us around everywhere. And it’s just great. Hey, let’s all welcome Macaca to America, welcome to the real world of Virginia.” – Senator George Allen (R-VA), August 11, 2006 “What I would say is that the news media should do a penetrating expose and take a look. I wish they would. I wish the American media would take a great look at the views of the people in Congress and find out, are they pro-America or Anti-America? I think the American people would love to see an expose like that.” – Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R, MN-06), October 17, 2008 This paper seeks to contextualize so-called “Macaca moments:” political gaffes that are heavily accessed through YouTube, leading to cascades of media and public attention with noticeable impacts on electoral campaigns. Made famous by Senator George Allen’s utterance of the obscure racial slur at a camera-wielding, Indian-American opposition campaign operative during a rally, the term has entered the American political lexicon as a synonym for YouTube’s effects on elections. Ryan Lizza of the New York Times perhaps put it best, “When politicians say inappropriate things, many voters will want to know. Now they can see it for themselves on the Web.”2 Political scientist Vassia Gueorguieva suggests that YouTube “ha[s] increased the potential for candidate exposure at a low cost or no cost at all and the ability of campaigns to reach out to the public for campaign contributions and for recruiting volunteers. In addition, [it] ha[s] provided lesser known candidates with a viable outlet to divulge their message to voters.”3 Against these positive pronouncements of YouTube’s transformative effects, we must recall Matthew Hindman’s rejoinder that various sorts of web traffic approximate a heavily-skewed power law distribution, suggesting that although anyone can freely speak on the web, only an elite few are substantially heard.4 If a candidate gaffe or user-generated commercial is published on YouTube, and no one is there to view it, does it make any impact? Particularly given that the supposed “Macaca Moment” of 2008 – Michelle Bachmann’s neo-McCarthyite episode on Hardball with Chris Matthews – failed to produce an electoral result, have we been too quick to credit YouTube with panoptic implications? I argue against the technology-centric framework commonly used to discuss YouTube, fundamentally suggesting that we gain greater theoretical traction by bringing the organizations back in. YouTube, like other internet communication technologies, dramatically lowers the transaction costs of content production, moving us (in Clay Shirky’s words) from a world of 2 Lizza, Ryan. 2006. “The YouTube Election.” The New York Times. August 20, 2006. Accessed online, March 26, 2009: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/20/weekinreview/20lizza.html 3 Gueorguieva, Vassia. 2008. “Voters, MySpace, and YouTube: The Impact of Alternative Communication Channels on the 2006 Election Cycle and Beyond.” Social Science Computer Review. Sage Publications. Vol 26, No 3. Pg 288. 4 Hindman, Matthew. 2008. The Myth of Digital Democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Macaca Moments Reconsidered 2 “filter, then publish” to a world of “publish, then filter.”5 This leads to a condition of information abundance, wherein the filtering, rather than the publishing, becomes the dominant challenge to mass collaboration or collective action. This act of filtering – of signaling to large, networked components of the online population that a video, blog post, or issue is worthy of their attention – is largely accomplished by a new set internet-mediated organizations. Political communities- of-interest, mobilizing under the guise of MoveOn.org, Dailykos.com, and other hub spaces, incorporate tools such as embedded YouTube video into their tactical repertoires, guiding and harvesting the cascade of mass attention to further their strategic goals. I argue that the political impact of YouTube videos is deeply rooted in the usage of such videos by these “netroots” organizations – simply put, when YouTube videos are highlighted by the major netroots groups, including elite political blogging communities like DailyKos, they receive substantial viewership and, more importantly, are converted into campaign donations and pressure campaign tactics. Without these donations and pressure tactics, it is unclear why large national viewer numbers would be determinative in the outcome of a local election. Rather than the common techno-centric “YouTube effects” explanation, which treats collective action as though it happens spontaneously or in response to formal elites, this theory of “netroots effects” argues that the dramatic lowering of video content-production costs only bears political fruit when organized interests incorporate them into ongoing efforts. Thus the lasting impact of such web 2.0 technologies as YouTube lies not in the dissolution of elite control, but in the creation of more porous elite networks and the development of new, “peer-produced” tactical repertoires. I present this argument through detailed cross-case comparison of the original “Macaca moment,” (the 2006 Virginia Senate race) and its 2008 successor (the 2008 Minnesota District 6 House race). Using the large volume of content posted to DailyKos through user diaries to reconstruct the full time-series of events in each case, I demonstrate that, although both instances led to substantial public outrage and partisan giving, and both led to increased respect from elected officials to the DailyKos “netroots” community, the central difference between them was the 2006 moment occurred in the context of an ongoing high-priority netroots campaign, while the 2008 moment was merely a brief, attention-drawing scandal. This method of analysis is also meant to illuminate just how different DailyKos is from standard personal blogs, and to perform an argument for increased scholarly attention to this major, understudied online political association. The paper is meant to provide theoretical grounding for future research attempts at studying the drivers of traffic and influence in YouTube, which will necessarily be more quantitative in nature. Background There has been surprisingly little written about the political “netroots” thus far – in the academic literature, virtually nothing in fact. Some research on political blogging has appeared in political science journals – most notably a special issue of Public Choice and various issues of Journal of Information Technology and Politics (JITP) – but this has largely considered bloggers as a single, discrete set of “citizen journalists” and sought to discuss their habits, practices, and effectiveness (see Pole 2005, McKenna and Pole 2004, Lenhart and Fox 2006, McKenna and 5 Shirky, Clay. 2008. Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing Without Organizations. New York: Penguin Group Macaca Moments Reconsidered 3 Pole 2008). While the blogosphere circa 2004 was arguably small enough to allow for such a classification, the explosive growth of the technology has since rendered such population-level studies problematic. Blog software is a relatively simple type of code, and as blogging has grown in popularity, various institutions have adopted blogging into their suite of online communications tools. While Duncan “Atrios” Black and Glenn “Instapundit” Reynolds – two early bloggers from the Left and the Right, respectively – shared much in common with each other and could be reasonably classified according to their role as “bloggers,” it is unclear why we should expect NBC News Anchor Brian Williams or Sierra Club Executive Director Carl Pope to use their blogs in much the same way. Likewise, with the launch of the community- engaging Scoop software platform in 2003, blogs like DailyKos began to offer their readers the opportunity not only to comment on the posts by Markos Moulitsas (nicknamed